Senior advocate and Rajya Sabha member Kapil Sibal has openly questioned the delay in action on the impeachment motion filed against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of the Allahabad High Court. During a press conference, Sibal expressed grave concern over the inaction of Rajya Sabha Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar, alleging that the government was shielding Justice Yadav from accountability.
Read also: CJI B R Gavai: Technology Must Support, Not Replace, Human Mind in Judiciary
The issue stems from alleged communal remarks made by Justice Yadav, which caught the public eye. According to a Hindustan Times report, the Supreme Court had initially considered initiating an internal inquiry against Justice Shekhar Yadav, as was done in the case of Justice Yashwant Verma. However, the Court reportedly received a message from the Rajya Sabha Secretariat, claiming that the matter was already being addressed through the impeachment motion, effectively stalling any internal proceedings.
"This is very unfortunate and smacks of discrimination. The internal process is independent of the impeachment motion, which has not even been admitted yet. We filed the motion on December 13, 2024. It is now June 2025, and the Secretariat has still not verified the 55 signatures. How long will it take?" - Kapil Sibal
Read also: Supreme Court: Accused can voluntarily undergo narco-analysis test only with court's permission
Sibal questioned the intent behind such a delay, highlighting that the impeachment motion has the required number of signatories. 55 MPs, above the minimum of 50 – but there has been no progress for over six months.
"Is the government trying to save Justice Shekhar Yadav?" — Kapil Sibal
He also made a reference to the controversial speech made by Justice Shekhar Yadav at a VHP event on the high court premises. The Supreme Court had taken note of it and sought an explanation. The Chief Justice of Allahabad reportedly submitted an adverse report. However, on February 13, 2025, Rajya Sabha Chairman Dhankhar said Parliament would take the matter forward and asked the judiciary to refrain from continuing with the in-house process.
Kapil Sibal clarified the difference between the two processes:
"The purpose of the in-house process is to let the Chief Justice of India decide whether a judge should face disciplinary action for not performing constitutional duties. It is not linked to impeachment in Parliament. If the government objects to in-house processes, it should formally reject them – not manipulate them."
Read also: Supreme Court hears plea against exclusion of visually impaired and locomotor disabled persons from
Turning to the case of Justice Yashwant Verma, Sibal alleged that the government was trying to circumvent constitutional norms by using the in-house inquiry report as a ground for removal without invoking the Judges (Inquiry) Act.
"The in-house report is only for the CJI. Removing a judge on the basis of such a report – without following the Judges (Inquiry) Act – is completely unconstitutional and endangers judicial independence."
Kapil Sibal also pointed to other actions by VP Dhankhar, which he saw as encroachments. He cited Dhankhar's criticism of the Supreme Court's use of Article 142 and its direction to set deadlines for pending bills, including Tamil Nadu's.
"Are we not discussing the same argument today? That the court cannot direct the Rajya Sabha chairman to act within a set timeline to decide on the impeachment motion. But that does not justify indefinite inaction either."
Kapil Sibal's statements highlight the growing tension between the judiciary and the legislature over the accountability mechanism for judges. His remarks are a reminder of the delicate balance needed to maintain the independence of constitutional institutions.
